Jeff,

Thanks much.  As you probably guessed, I've been aware of the first category of
research for decades, though I can see that my sentence didn't necessarily make
that clear.  It's the metalanguage issue I was curious about.  And yes, I know
enough about language acquisition to realize that the meanings of words aren't
grasped all at once; in fact, I think I made the same point a couple of days
ago, with respect to the meaning(s) of the grammar terms we use.    But I never
heard the point made that cats might later be distinguished from dogs by the
presence or absence of slobber!  Neat.  Also, I'm interested in the fact that
you've found young children using the metalanguage about language weeks or
months later.  That certainly does lend support for the idea of starting
early.  Despite the argument that children need to have developed what Piaget
calls "formal operational thinking" before then can understand grammatical
concepts, I disagree.  I think there is plenty of evidence that they can
generalize language concepts from examples, just as they do in other areas of
learning.

As for analysis and analytic ability, I also think that's the commonality
between doing well in math and doing well in linguistic/grammar study.  But
then, I think of how our students are taught to do literary analysis in our
department, and I still wonder why so many find grammar so difficult!

Connie



JEFF GLAUNER wrote:

> Connie wrote:
>
> "I was intrigued by a recent posting suggesting that not only do children
> learn
> to understand and speak a language more readily than adolescents and adults,
> but
> they also find it easier to develop the metalanguage for talking about
> language.  Is this supported by research?  Another issue that intrigues me:
> I
> find that students who are really good in math are usually good at
> grammatical
> analysis.  Have any of the rest of you noticed such a connection or read
> research on it?"
>
> I the one, Connie.  In terms of prepubescent children learning to speak and
> understand language more readily than older persons, that has been quite
> firmly established by research everywhere.  For a quick overview, I suggest
> Clark, Eschholz, and Rosa's "Language Introductory Readings," Part II.  As
> to the learning of linguistic metalanguage, I was simply extending
> (unscientifically) the previous idea because metalanguage is, indeed,
> language.  I could be wrong.  I don't know of any research that specifically
> deals with the learning of metalanguage.  In terms of anecdotal evidence, I
> have tried such terminology out of several small children (some of them my
> own) and have been gratified at how it comes back at me weeks or months
> later.  Of course, their understanding of such terms is primitive,
> generalized, and incomplete; but, once the term is in their vocabulary, they
> can refine it for more mature use.  That's true of just about all of the
> language learning in early childhood.  "Dog," for instance, might first be
> generalized as any four-legged creature with fur and teeth.  Later, it might
> be separated from "cat" on the basis of absence or presence of slobber.
>
> As to the math question, I have noticed it, too.  I'm a little embarrassed
> when college math majors succeed in my writing classes better than my own
> English majors.  It happens often.  I've sometimes made the assumption that
> I'm too much the curmudgeon in regard to analytic detail.  Math students
> seem to crave and produce focus, completeness, order, and correctness.  Put
> in other words, these are the four classical "topics."
>
> Jeff Glauner
> Paark University